Talk:Gladys (Muppet Show)
I want to rename this article, based on discussion on Cecil the List, but I'm not sure how. We already have a Gladys page, which is a disambiguation page that splits out to Gladys the Cow and Gladys Monster. So what should this article be called? "Gladys (canteen)"? "Gladys (Muppet Show)"? Something else? -- Danny (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC) :Either one of these is fine with me: "Gladys (canteen)," "Gladys (Muppet Show)," "Gladys (cafeteria lady)." -- Scott (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC) ::Actually, what do you think about making this article "Gladys", and not having a disambig page? That's how we're doing it with "Dorothy" being the goldfish page, and the other Dorothy pages having their own names. So we could have Gladys, Gladys the Cow and Gladys Monster. That would be my preference. -- Danny (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC) :::That sounds good, too. If it's just plain Gladys and we do no disambig, Gladys the Cow should get a "See Also." -- Scott (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC) ::::For example, this is how Wikipedia does it: Dorothy... and then look under "See Also." -- Scott (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC) :::::I've seen Wikipedia do it this way (see the top of the Dorothy page). Are we going to put the disambigs down in the "see also"s or up at the top? You might also want to look at wikipedia:Disambiguation to see how their system works. -- Brad D. (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC) ::::::Yeah, I'm aware of the top version. I'm not sure which one I like best. What does everyone else think? -- Scott (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC) :::::::My preference is to do it in "See also". We use the "See also" heading for other things too, so it makes sense to look there. I don't really like it at the top. When I see that, it always causes a moment of confusion, especially if this is actually the page I'm looking for. It's like walking in a door and the first thing you see is, Hey, if you meant to walk into a different room, then you're in the wrong place. I find it a little disorienting. -- Danny (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC) ::::::::On the other hand, if you are looking for the other article, the most useful place to have the helpful note is the top. You wouldn't necessarily scroll to the bottom of a potentially long page to look for something you didn't know would be there. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I find cons against having a disambiguation in either spot of an article. Which makes me wonder if, in that case, Dorothy should be just the disambig page. That way, no matter what article you're looking for, you know right away that it's a disambig page and you can see a nice, neat list before you to get to where you want. -- Scott (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC) :::::::::Yeah, if the choice is between a disambig page or putting the "See also" at the top, then I'd rather have the disambig page. -- Danny (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC) ::::::::::You say Gladys, I think Cow. So if I put "Gladys" into the search box and up comes a page about a cafeteria lady, and I have to scroll all the way to the bottom to find the link to the cow, I'm not happy. So I think Gladys should be a disambig page. And I vote "Gladys (Muppet Show)" for the name of this article. -- ''Erik (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC) :::::::::::I agree with Erik. -- Peter (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)